Hey if the biggest crook of the decade says it, it must be true.
4 Likes
Just like Brandon the spoils are rotten.
What had Hobbes done so far?
What does he have to gain by lying about that? Its not unusual for businesses to play both sides of the political divide. My own employer does that and I know of several other businesses who want friendly âcosyâ relations with dems and reps.
Its only in hannity land and other political forums where the general idea is you have to be one or the other and you always always have to hate on the opposition.
I guarantee in congress and the senate lots of friendships that transcend politics exist.
vetod bills passed by the arizona legislature.
Allan
NoâŚand itâs why section 230 must be revisited. This election interference is outside the scope of the original intent when it was passed in the 90s.
Section 230 does not prevent or allow the video to be censored.
May be find a video that picks another section? May be it will be that one. Let us know.
What it eliminates is suing for doing so.
Cite the part that does. Or try to find another section that fits this profile.
Here ya go
no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)).
What is Section 230? Section 230 is a provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that protects companies that host user-created content from lawsuits over posts on their services.
There ya go.
It does not prevent lawsuits for censoring of those posts by the company
Again. For the cheap seats. For the umpteenth time
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)).
When it was written and the intent of it has evolved right along with the internet and is whatâs in question right now that the courts need to settle. When they censor, theyâve now changed from being just a platform that was the original intent for protection.
1 Like
Which has nothing to do with section 230 and everything to do with their terms of service
The reason why you canât sue is because of terms of service not because they are a publisher.
It does not mean that it is not censorship. It does not mean that it is not biased. It just means that you need to understand the difference between section 230 protections and contractual agreement in the form of click through tos. Good luck getting the courts to overturn agreements to those.
I hear you and the SCOTUS is having a tough time with it but it must be addressed. The social media giants have become powerful, influential entities far and beyond what was considered in 1996 and they are interfering in our elections.
2 Likes
And the problem is that the scotus decided that click through are legal.
Itâs a conundrum that must be addressed and my compliments on your knowledge in this area.
1 Like
If only there was more than one social media platform and you could post your garbage somewhere else.
If I write a book, and a publisher doesnât accept it for publication, is that censorship? Or can I go to other publishers, or self-publish?
Some follow up on former Arizona AG Brnovichâs mischaracterization of his probe into Arizona election problems:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/22/arizona-election-fraud-claims-mark-brnovich/
What a shocker that his public statements contradicted his own staffâs and investigatorsâ conclusions. Good riddance.
How do you enforce it? Search everybody going into a polling place? Get real.
Now it appears that according to professionals in Arizona, that Katie Hobbs has a long standing, fraudulent relationship with the Mexican drug cartels. Evidence of this was just entered into the hearingâs records and it appears to be devastating. That said, if itâs true, even knowing Hobbs was in charge of the election too, Iâm sure that nothing fraudulent took place. Itâs all good.
2 Likes
You might want to watch the testimony. This so called expert witness offered zero evidence. She just threw out accusations. Interesting to note that the Republicans leading this hearing did not ask for any.
1 Like
